Get a back bone !!!

Wow, there’s a useful rebuttal.

Aj: “Humans do it all the time, I can also use anthropomorphication, metaphor, and analogy.”

That’s not adding intention, that’s using figures of speech. I think a certain XKCD strip is called for:

Communicating badly and then acting smug when you’re misunderstood is not cleverness.

If you wanted to talk about figures of speech, then you should have said so, but then, you would have had to take into account what I already wrote earlier:

Obviously, Barker is being figurative, but he has not left us much information on how to unpack his figure of speech into a proposition about which one can argue.

Your attempt at unpacking was unsuccessful.

from Doug Stewart:
Most homosexuals I know are no different from heterosexuals in every way imaginable other than the bedroom.

Every way imaginable? Honestly? C’mon, we freethinkers needn’t fear that honest observation makes us bigots.

Many people have indicated that the FFRF sign is too harsh, but no one has ever challenged it as not being true!

Exactly! It’s because that’s the POINT. The harshness of tone, not disagreement with the idea, is the valid reason for objection. You’re upset that theists weren’t being unconstitutional? Damned if you do, etc.

The government has the discretion to prescribe consistent standards of decorum and tone in a public display, which is not a violation of the freedom of speech, and is also why my “Zeus, Odin and I Bukkake Your Grandma on a Sleigh” display was rejected. And in this case, many thought it proper decorum that everyone not be an intentionally belittling, sanctimonious dee-bag in a display celebrating a season religiously and secularly accepted as a customary time of kindness and goodwill. (What? Your mom’s a drawn-out sentence.)

If you want “harsh”, maybe the religious community would like a medieval picture of a blasphemer being burned at the stake with a sign that says, “Free Speech? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Free Speech.” – God.

But theists didn’t want “harsh”, from/for themselves or others, that’s the point: they wanted a consistent, equal standard of civility for all involved. And “free speech”, while effective in rallying the ideological masses even when uncritically and indiscriminately draped around anything “expression”, is in this case a red, white and blue herring.

So just to clarify: are theists dickheads because they’re belligerent and confrontational? Or because they want mutual civility and respect? Or is the mere adherence to theistic belief reason enough to be indignant no matter what behavior is displayed? These mixed signals just leave a gal so confused…

So I want to model the behavior that I want to see. I don’t want to see a sign in a state house attacking atheists as having hardened hearts and enslaved minds; therefore, I’m not so fond of it happening from our side either.

As atheists, we are working for cultural acceptance and a place at the table, and it is coming, although quicker in some realms (such as academia) than others (such as politics). Nevertheless, in the USA we currently do not have to deal with the same level of institutionalized discrimination that many people currently or historically have had to deal with. I think by modeling good behavior and letting people know that 1) You can be good without a god and without a religion 2) we believe in the importance of living ethical lives and 3) constitutionally mandated separation of church and state is good for everyone, atheist and religious alike, then we are on a good path. I agree that we should be visible. But I’m not a fan of the visibility that “angry atheists” bring us.

I know from personal experience plenty of people who were motivated by their religious convictions to do great things. One of my mentors when I was a student antiwar activist in college was a nun who spent her entire life striving for social justice. And she knew I was an atheist. We got along fabulously. Having known people like her, I really can’t accept blanket statements like “religion hardens hearts.”

What we need to be doing is to maintain a moral high ground and focus on getting our message out. And part of that message is that atheism is a positive, effective and fulfilling (not to mention rational) way of looking at the world. Telling people- especially those on the fence who may be leaning towards atheism- that they have “hardened hearts and enslaved minds” does not accomplish this. In my opinion, this only serves to widen the divide and reinforce the kneejerk “Oh no, not an Atheist!” reaction many people unfortunately have. We need to show people that atheism is more, much more, than just an angry or stubborn refusal to believe.

…when someone says that X does Y, with no qualifications, generally the implication is that X doesn’t do the opposite of Y…

No…

You can’t just by fiat just “add intention” to something that doesn’t have it.

Humans do it all the time, I can also use anthropomorphication, metaphor, and analogy. The problem does not come from using these, but from taking them literally. That’s antithetical to their function.

That is to say, any dog which has not been spayed or neutered.

“Dog” singular? Are you saying dogs are hermaphrodites?